MUKESH KUMAR JOSHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 41(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1555/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 February 2023AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no reason to interfere with the findings. The assessee failed to provide contrary material to rebut the findings of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in foodgrain trading and commission agency, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer noticed significant cash deposits and withdrawals in the assessee's bank accounts and made additions estimating profit and interest due to lack of supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits and withdrawals, without proper explanation and supporting evidence from the assessee, is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.DR
Hearing: 02.02.2023Pronounced: 16.02.2023

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi dated 23.09.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That Ld CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,09,615/- in the income of assesses without bringing any adverse material on record. That the cash withdrawal from the bank has been treated as sales which is wrong and unjustified.

2. That Ld CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in partly allowing the ground of Appeal No 3.

3. That the Assessee has every right to make, add, delete, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that no one has been attended the proceedings since 20.05.2021. Despite various opportunities of hearing provided to the assessee, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. On the date fixed for hearing i.e. 02.02.2023, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. The notices sent through speed post were returned back unserved by the Postal Authority with remark “left without intimation” and notice dated 28.12.2022 sent through Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”) is also reported that the premises are “locked”. The assessee has not provided any current address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being disposed off on the basis of material available on record.

3.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed return of income online, declaring income of Rs.2,18,100/- on 31.03.2014. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the trading of foodgrains and commission agent in his proprietary firm under the Name of M/s. Joshi Enterprises & M/s. Jai Bholey Trading Co. It was noticed that the assessee was maintaining five bank accounts wherein he had deposited cash of Rs.96,12,771/- and Rs.7,33,672/-, totaling Rs.1,03,46,443/-. The AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had made various transactions. He found that there was total transaction related to deposits was Rs.50,49,57,811/- and total withdrawals of Rs.50,43,80,268/-. The assessee was asked to explain the same. The AO noticed that despite various opportunities, the assessee could not file P&L Account and other supporting evidences. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to make addition estimating the profit at Rs.5,09,615/- on account of consignment sale or entry transaction of Rs.24,73,056/- and interest of Rs.37,883/-. Thus, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.33,38,650/-. Page | 2

4.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, he confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.7,70,256/- in respect of consignment sale. However, he sustained other additions in respect of the estimated profit of Rs.5,09,615/- and the interest.

5.

Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

Apropos to Grounds of appeal, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and strongly supported the assessment order.

7. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has considered the facts and elaborately discussed the issue in the impugned order. The assessee has failed to rebut the finding of Ld.CIT(A) by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →